[Old Johnson Street Bridge] Design and technical discussion

[Caramia]

John Luton is on Council and Council has to approve anything that is selected. So he still has a chance to have a say. Alison and David are on the CAC. I believe his expertise is cycling and hers is sustainability.

[G-Man]

Even hearing the options pains me. I have now lost the rest of the hop... wait a second I knew we were going to end with a crappy design.

Caramia - The second option does not really make sense to me. One of the pics was of a bridge like the Alex Fraser in Vancouver. If a bridge is cable stayed then how do you lift it? Are the stays just there for show?

[gumgum]

Originally Posted by Caramia

Gumgum the Canary wharf version is only an example of the type of mechanism. What it looked like in their preliminary sketch was very different. The bigger the wheel, the less powerful the motor has to be. A very big wheel with a much smaller motor could be as high as the Blue Bridge. 20m. I think that could be very cool if done right.

When you were at Canary Wharf, did you ever walk under the bridge through the mechanism? Was it anti-climatic?

I walked under the bridge from the othe side of the canal. But I never witnessed it opening.

I don't know the mechanics of such a bridge, but if a bigger wheel is required to be that high above the street surface of the road, than I could envision something pretty visually enticing, but if the engineering requires the wheel portion to remain below the road than - even when the bridge was rising - there would be little to see unless you were under the bridge. I would like to see the hardcore mechanics of the machine right in my face. But that's just me.

[mat]

I think Caramia deserves a huge amount of credit for her stand with the appointment to the Bridge Citizen advisory Committee, her responses on VV, and with johnsonstreetbridge.org

It is a difficult position to go into: as one who helped generate this discussion, had a default personal preference as to what should happen with the Blue Bridge, and who was part of the genesis of the .ORG group. It's a credit to the City of Victoria that her position stands when they were made aware.

Credit is also due to the admins of VV, Mike and Dylan, who have from the outset, and recently, remained steadfast in their belief that VV is an open discussion platform - the trust in moderators to, well, moderate themselves.

The questions surrounding the process, decision making, financing, and public consultation of the planned replacement of the Blue Bridge still remain. The next few weeks will prove to be intensely interesting.

[Caramia]

Gumgum I am hoping they will send me the powerpoint presentation that they gave us, and I will be able to show you what I saw. It is hard to paint the picture with measly words.

Now that I am thinking it over, I am realizing that the third option probably has a lot of potential. I just need to get over the picture they showed us and wait to see what the architects do with it now that we've narrowed it down to those three.

Thanks Mat, I think the next few weeks are going to be a huge learning experience for me. I intend to drag you all along with me.

G-Man, the engineers really liked the second option. It is a cable stayed bascule bridge. The masts are the ballast. So the taller the mast the better the ballast, and the smaller the motor. It is sort of like twin two sided triangles, with the deck as the bottom side, the two masts as the vertical side, and the cable stays filling in the rest. The triangles would tilt backward toward the east, and come down on either side of waiting cars.

I drew you a picture - It is a scribble, I apologize, but I hope it conveys the idea.

[victorian fan]

I think Caramia deserves a huge amount of credit for her stand with the appointment to the Bridge Citizen advisory Committee, her responses on VV, and with johnsonstreetbridge.org

Hear hear.
Thank-you Caramia.

[spanky123]

Thanks again Cara for all of your hard work but it sounds like the mandate of the CAC is to pick one of the $63M bridges the consultants present.

I would have preferred that the mandate included continuing the dicussion on whether a new bridge is needed at all and whether we need to spend $63M even if we decided that replacing the bridge was the best course of action.

[North Shore]

Cara,

Looking at your last drawing, if you put the tower on the VicWest side of the harbour, then the floatplanes could simply come around the north side. Also, even if the towers were higher than the present structure, then all it really does is put your landing point further down the harbour, with a concomitant increase in taxi time back to the dock..

[LJ]

Originally Posted by North Shore

Cara,

Looking at your last drawing, if you put the tower on the VicWest side of the harbour, then the floatplanes could simply come around the north side. Also, even if the towers were higher than the present structure, then all it really does is put your landing point further down the harbour, with a concomitant increase in taxi time back to the dock..

Wouldn't there be towers on both sides? If for nothing else but symmetry.

[Caramia]

Originally Posted by spanky

Thanks again Cara for all of your hard work but it sounds like the mandate of the CAC is to pick one of the $63M bridges the consultants present.

I would have preferred that the mandate included continuing the dicussion on whether a new bridge is needed at all and whether we need to spend $63M even if we decided that replacing the bridge was the best course of action.

I have come into this late so I am not sure what was covered prior to my appointment. However, as a non-elected person, I'd be reluctant to make that repair or replace decision on behalf of the taxpayers. At least Mayor & Council were elected. Even if they made a decision that makes me feel sad.

Should the funding not come through from senior levels of government, I would hope we could slow down, share with the public whatever information caused them to make that decision so unanimously, and then hold a referendum on it. You are absolutely correct, the CAC is just looking at different types of bridge - and the bridge designs we are looking at are very much cartoons, focusing on different types of mechanism and more than architectural detail. That said, from the number of questions around cost that they are asking, it is clear the price tag is a major consideration for each of them.

Tomorrow I expect the City to launch its website. Hopefully many of our questions will be answered then.

[Mike K.]

I have come into this late so I am not sure what was covered prior to my appointment. However, as a non-elected person, I'd be reluctant to make that repair or replace decision on behalf of the taxpayers. At least Mayor & Council were elected. Even if they made a decision that makes me feel sad.

Are there minutes and/or other forms of records the public, or even CAC members, have access to? The City should be providing a record of everything that has gone on or at the very least brief you on what has already been covered, no?

[Caramia]

I have a massive binder full of material I have not even begun to digest Mike. I'd be happy to sit down with you at the office though and we could go over it any time after Thursday (I'm pretty much running as fast as I can to get my work done plus this until then.) I've spent a fair amount of time reviewing all the various relevant plans they need us to digest and use as foundational references. I'm familiar with most of them but not at the tip of my tongue. There are harbour plans, pedestrian plans, OCP, Vic West Neighbourhood plan... the list goes on.

LJ regarding symmetry. After reviewing the various different stayed cable bascule bridge types, we leaned towards an asymmetrical bridge. Here's why:

- This bridge would be built just North of where the current bridge sits. The viewlines are going to be asymmetrical with whatever is on the West side eclipsed by the line of the shore.

- The added expense of putting two masts on each side is significant. This expense would continue to rack up for the life of the bridge, as operating costs would be higher.

- Having the seam meet at the middle is structurally less sound than having it meet at the shore.

So, adding the western masts would add expense, weaken the structure, all for a view that would be hidden from most common viewpoints.

[Bernard]

Originally Posted by Caramia

I have a massive binder full of material I have not even begun to digest Mike. I'd be happy to sit down with you at the office though and we could go over it any time after Thursday (I'm pretty much running as fast as I can to get my work done plus this until then.) I've spent a fair amount of time reviewing all the various relevant plans they need us to digest and use as foundational references. I'm familiar with most of them but not at the tip of my tongue. There are harbour plans, pedestrian plans, OCP, Vic West Neighbourhood plan... the list goes on.

LJ regarding symmetry. After reviewing the various different stayed cable bascule bridge types, we leaned towards an asymmetrical bridge. Here's why:

- This bridge would be built just North of where the current bridge sits. The viewlines are going to be asymmetrical with whatever is on the West side eclipsed by the line of the shore.

- The added expense of putting two masts on each side is significant. This expense would continue to rack up for the life of the bridge, as operating costs would be higher.

- Having the seam meet at the middle is structurally less sound than having it meet at the shore.

So, adding the western masts would add expense, weaken the structure, all for a view that would be hidden from most common viewpoints.

Can the information be scanned and posted online somewhere?

[Caramia]

I don't have a scanner Bernard, and this is a very comprehensive package, many pages, some of which are out of date because the design process is ongoing and plans are being rewritten daily (for instance all the plans for the approaches in my binder were radically altered based on the feedback from the CAC.) Bulk scanning might release as much misinformation as information.

My suggestion is that we wait until the City puts up it's website which should go live - possibly even tomorrow. I suspect that the lions share of questions will be answered there. My understanding is that communications staff has been combing through all the questions mailed to them in letters and emails, and chasing down the facts from the various architects, engineers, etc who are involved.

I have the benefit of being able to post informally here. If I get something wrong or get new and better information, I am always free to say "oops" here's the correction and assume you all will forgive me (er, right?). So my notes should be considered a lower order of information, prone to human error. But the folks preparing the website have much more pressure to get it right.

Any questions left over that I have the capacity to answer I will, plus stuff that comes up at the public meeting tonight, I am happy to share. If disaster strikes and the city can't get the website up sooner rather than later we may have to resort to my attempts to cobble things together in retrospect, and take the results with the appropriate grain of salt.

[G-Man]

It was a joke that people were worried about something 40 metres tall interfering with the seaplanes right?

40 metres as we all know is lower then the old height limit in Victoria. So a 14 storey building. Not sure if anyone else has ever been on the seaplanes but as they bank over the JSB to turn in for their landing they are still at about 150 - 175 metres high.

Man every time someone wants to build somthing over 3 metres a freaking seaplane is going to hit it.

[Caramia]

G-Man not everyone has that knowledge. I'd be more worried if they didn't think about the fact that they are building on an airport before they drew the plans. Again, the idea was that they needed to meet with the other marine users to make sure none of them were non starters. I'd suggest it would be a joke if they didn't check the flight paths first before putting a lot of time/money into architectural shaping of the bridge options and release to the public.

[UrbanRail]

Nice work Caramia, I really do appreciate you keeping us up to speed on what is going on.

I like the fact that the bridge is being designed not to just accommodate cars, but to also include proper cycling lanes, trail connections and of course rail. The E&N has to continue across the bridge to allow for a future extension up Pandora Ave ( I am working on some possible ideas on how this can be done).


I am looking forward to attending the open house when it is announced.

Thanks again.

Aaron

[Caramia]

Thanks Aaron! I'm looking forward to hearing your take on the plans for the rail corridor.

Earlier I posted saying I wasn't sure what exactly the role of Wilkinson Eyre Architects was to be. My current understanding is that they are THE architects for the bridge - responsible for drafting first the rough examples of types of design that were presented to CAC to choose three from, now responsible for a more sophisticated level of design of those three options to present to the public on Sept 8th, and then finally responsible for the final design which should include public input and council's choice. The design/built contractor would be chosen through the normal RFQ process but they would all be bidding based on the architectural drawing produced by Wilkinson Eyre.

(As always, I reserve the right to be dead wrong about all of the above)

Regardless of my concerns about no true design competition, I am somewhat heartened by the caliber of their work. They have produced some truly iconic, world class bridges. Take a look at Wilkinson Eyre's portfolio of bridge designs.

You can find it here on their website - Warning, it is a flash site, so not easy to link to images, or to navigate: http://www.wilkinsoneyre.com
Here is the ArchInForm page about them: http://eng.archinform.net/arch/31255.htm

[jklymak]

I have to say that rail traffic should be a pretty minor consideration for the bridge design. Is there really any serious consideration being put into having commuter rail come in on this route? The current bridge's bike problems could be easily rectified by making the tracks a pair of bike lanes. I don't feel the once-a-day E&N incursion warrants this use of the bridge, and I don't see any indication that rail traffic will increase in the foreseeable decades.

Sorry UrbanRail - I can see the call for LRT to the Westshore, or trams in town, but commuter rail seems like a long shot given our population density. Besides, I really don't want to encourage development in places like Cobble Hill etc.

[mat]

My understanding is,and maybe Cara can clarify, IF the bridge is to have a rail line then Transport Canada requires it to take the weight of a standard, loaded freight train. It does not matter for what actual future rail use is envisioned.

That limits all sorts of factors for the bridge design and approaches. The span carrying the rail lines must carry the top weight limit, the rail approaches and bridge deck must be wide enough to accommodate that size.

[Caramia]

Urbanrail might be able to help with this, but I think there is a business plan being reviewed by the province as we speak for commuter rail. It may come down the pipe with a yes or no in the next few weeks, which would add a whole lot of certainty to things.

Urbanrail, any comment?

Preserving the rail corridor was one of the conditions that MMM was given. However we have yet to see if they feel that they must simply build the bridge so rail can be added later, or build it in now. I'm afraid I have no insight to share about the LRT vs Freight vs Commuter part. If the CAC did weigh in that would have been before my appointment.

[VicHockeyFan]

Originally Posted by mat

My understanding is,and maybe Cara can clarify, IF the bridge is to have a rail line then Transport Canada requires it to take the weight of a standard, loaded freight train. It does not matter for what actual future rail use is envisioned.

That limits all sorts of factors for the bridge design and approaches. The span carrying the rail lines must carry the top weight limit, the rail approaches and bridge deck must be wide enough to accommodate that size.

At least since the 70's, and maybe forever, the rail bridge has not been able to support the weight of both a standard or even a yard engine, along with the weight of a full tanker of propane. For years, after the coal gasification plant was closed, they brought propane down twice a week to pump into the lines that previously distributed the coal gas. Now those lines are natural gas, of course.

So what they did was put an empty flat-deck between the engine and the tank, as they pushed it over the bridge.

Well, invariable, they got lazy, and instead decided to push the tanker to the bridge, nudge it so it traveled across under its own steam, then after it cleared the main span of the bridge, chase after and catch up with it. This is not allowed under normal rules, you are not allowed to let a full tanker car travel on its own.. Anyway, one time they didn't catch up with it, it hit the bend at Store and derailed. Several city blocks had to be evacuated until they could determine for sure there was no leak. Luckily, there was none.

[Caramia]

What an awesome story. I wish you had pictures.

[UrbanRail]

The E&N Study Phase One is to be completed in October, then Phase Two which is to development a business plan to send to the government starts right after or early next year.

The basic idea of phase one is to get ideas, opinions of stakeholders, public, etc on the current rail line. Also the study is to look at the current freight and passenger services and then future ideas on how to improve these services, what markets exist, etc. It is also to look at the connection between urban development and the rail corridor. Phase One will apparently determine if there is a Phase Two.

I have included a link to the study. Commuter Rail, Intercity Rail, Tourist and Freight are all being looked at.

http://www.th.gov.bc.ca//publication...tions.htm#open

This link includes 3 PDF documents that describe the study in much detail.

I have to disagree with the the notion that there is no future for the E&N. Its current state is the product of years of neglect. Yes only one train goes up and down, but there is a lot of potential to improve upon that. Yes the bridge design should seriously consider the E&N as part of it.

As for the E&N being an incursion on the bridge, that almost sounds like its a disease. That is the same stuff I am hearing from the radical cyclists that say that the E&N should be turned into a world class bike trail. Sorry cyclists, but that wont happen.

We must be encourage a multi-modal transportation system on the island.

As for population density, we have to get past this notion that we need a million people or more for rail to work. I am not suggesting that the commuter rail service should be every 5 minutes, it wont be, but I can see peak hour service between Duncan and Victoria and Duncan and Parksville. We have to be creative when it comes to reinventing the E&N. With climate change being an important topic and as well as the economy, rail will become more and more seriously looked at.

As for encouraging development in Cobble Hill, it is already happening regardless of the railway. Just look at Ladysmith, Parksville, Courtenay/Comox, Langford and Nanaimo, these are the fastest growing communities on the island and they are all served by the E&N. The key is to keep it close to the rail corridor at major stations.

The alternative is slamming a new highway through Goldstream Park, which I think any sane person would not support. I mean come on, we have an underutilized rail corridor that has endless potential.

The JSB needs to have rail as part of its design. To not include it would be a serious misguided error in judgment. One could design it so that streetcars (as is done in Europe) can share the track as well, although I think the Bay St bridge is a better choice for that.

If we are to encourage people to travel on this island between the urban areas without having to use a car, then rail is the way to go. Many live up island and commute into Victoria to work, so having direct rail access to the downtown core makes a lot of sense.

Unfortunately the fate and future of the railway lies with our friend Gordon Campbell and his government. But I do see a light at the end of the tunnel. (no pun intended)

Anyway that is how I see it.

[mat]

From CAC (Citizen advisory Committee) information - rail IS included - and they, and the concept architects, have noted that in the potential designs.

Having said that - one idea that came up during the conversations post public jsb.ORG meeting on Tuesday was to twin the Bay St. with a rail bridge, and run a new rail/light rail line along there into both downtown, and potentially connecting to the peninsula. Don't know if that is viable, but it would take away some of the limitations of any new design for the JSB that MUST incorporate rail.

There are all sorts of City driven and private traffic management studies done over the last decades which appear to have been ignored, or not brought forth when the decision to replace the bridge, and revamp the approaches was made in April.

If the Fed/Prov infrastructure funding does not come through - or it has serious limitations which have a true cost impact to resident taxpayers, then the likelihood of a counter petition/referendum becomes greater. After that - if the current borrowing bylaw is refused by resident voters - everything can be re-opened for consideration (and hopefully with full consultation and timely information provision)